They prohibited saying something too abstract, like “Harry comes up with a way to persuade Voldemort to let him out of the box.” They did not prohibit actually figuring out a way to persuade Voldemort. By extension, it would also not be allowed to say “Harry comes up with a way to kill all the Death Eaters with magic.” It just had to be specific enough.
Voldemort doesn’t want the world destroyed, and he just made Harry into a world-destruction-preventer. Pointing this out — and pointing out that Harry is now a better world-destruction-preventer than Voldemort could become — doesn’t involve changing Voldemort’s utility function.
(Voldemort can’t swear an Unbreakable Vow akin to Harry’s because nobody has trust in him that could be sacrificed to power it.)
He didn’t make Harry into a world-destruction-preventer. He only made Harry swear not to actively destroy the world. Also, while Merlin might think that with all the effort Voldemort went through to prevent Harry from destroying the world it would be easier to destroy the world with a piece of cheese, I wouldn’t find that so comforting.
He doesn’t have to be persuaded to be good, he just has to be persuaded to let Harry out of the box. If he lets Harry out of the box for non-good reasons, that still counts.
The rules stated that we couldn’t change Voldemort’s utility function or turn him good, but his utility function already placed an extremely high value on not having the world destroyed, or losing his immortality. It was quite possible that the solution would have been to convince him that killing Harry would end the world, or that he required Harry in the future in order to save it. The Vow and the parseltongue both were valuable tools in convincing Voldemort of this.
They prohibited saying something too abstract, like “Harry comes up with a way to persuade Voldemort to let him out of the box.” They did not prohibit actually figuring out a way to persuade Voldemort. By extension, it would also not be allowed to say “Harry comes up with a way to kill all the Death Eaters with magic.” It just had to be specific enough.
Voldemort doesn’t want the world destroyed, and he just made Harry into a world-destruction-preventer. Pointing this out — and pointing out that Harry is now a better world-destruction-preventer than Voldemort could become — doesn’t involve changing Voldemort’s utility function.
(Voldemort can’t swear an Unbreakable Vow akin to Harry’s because nobody has trust in him that could be sacrificed to power it.)
He didn’t make Harry into a world-destruction-preventer. He only made Harry swear not to actively destroy the world. Also, while Merlin might think that with all the effort Voldemort went through to prevent Harry from destroying the world it would be easier to destroy the world with a piece of cheese, I wouldn’t find that so comforting.
He doesn’t have to be persuaded to be good, he just has to be persuaded to let Harry out of the box. If he lets Harry out of the box for non-good reasons, that still counts.
The rules stated that we couldn’t change Voldemort’s utility function or turn him good, but his utility function already placed an extremely high value on not having the world destroyed, or losing his immortality. It was quite possible that the solution would have been to convince him that killing Harry would end the world, or that he required Harry in the future in order to save it. The Vow and the parseltongue both were valuable tools in convincing Voldemort of this.